¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

State actors can contribute to the fact-checking ecosystem by supporting the efforts of non-state actors and fostering media and digital literacy, emphasising the importance of states acting as partners to safeguard the fact-checking ecosystem without infringing on freedom of expression or engaging in censorship, writes Zulker Naeen

IN THE ever-changing landscape of misinformation in South Asia, there has always been a debate about the state’s role in fact-checking. Can the state take on the role of fact-checker? If so, how can the state ensure that its fact-checking initiatives do not lead to censorship, especially in politically sensitive or controversial areas?

One example of this standoff can be seen in India, where the state has launched a fact-checking website; however, India’s Supreme Court halted the government’s notification to a state-run press body to investigate alleged fake news or misinformation on social media, citing ‘serious constitutional questions’ on the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit.

Such a state agency-led initiative to counter misinformation could easily be weaponised to suppress dissent and control the narrative in favour of the ruling party. This episode is a critical reminder that while fighting misinformation is essential, who controls the fact-checking process — and how transparent and accountable that process is — remains equally crucial to ensuring a healthy democratic debate. India’s case illustrates a broader global challenge: if fact-checking mechanisms are seen as politically compromised, they risk deepening societal divisions rather than fostering informed public discourse.

This discussion also took place at a session of South Asia’s first-ever networking symposium titled ‘Nomadic Narratives: The Cross-Border Spread of Misinformation in South Asia,’ organised by ULAB’s Centre for Critical and Qualitative Studies in Dhaka. Along with twelve representatives from South Asian countries, academics, researchers, fact-checkers, journalists, development practitioners, and other representatives from both state and non-state entities actively participated in this debate. That discussion transformed into a dynamic platform for peer review and comments, with thoughtful contributions from regional and local specialists, enhancing the conversation with their perspectives on the state-led initiatives to tackle misinformation. The event concluded with a powerful call to action, urging regional stakeholders to commit to long-term strategies that not only curb the dissemination of misinformation but also actively promote digital literacy, critical thinking, and media accountability.

This collaborative approach ensured a state’s strategy with a whole-of-society approach for the unique socio-political challenges and cultural nuances of each country in South Asia, paving the way for a truly effective and inclusive approach to countering misinformation across the region.ÌýFor this reason, determining a state’s strategy for dealing with South Asia’s changing misinformation environment is essential. It necessitates a precise definition of state responses, as there is a lack of understanding regarding the roles and responsibilities of state actors.

It is not surprising to observe the rise of state-led fact-checking activities. Nonetheless, many democratic countries have started or are now planning to initiate state agency-led fact-checking institutions. With these initiatives taking root, one might ask: Will these state- and agency-backed efforts effectively tackle the floodgate of misinformation?ÌýWhile independent fact-checking organisations play a pivotal role in countering false narratives, the state’s involvement must strike a delicate balance between fostering an ecosystem that promotes transparency and accountability and avoiding undue control that could undermine the integrity of these initiatives.

Where else can state actors take the lead in the current fact-checking ecosystem, rather than restricting freedom of expression or giving priority to state-led fact-checking operations? The state’s responsibility extends beyond mere fact-checking; instead, it involves shaping a society capable of discerning truth from falsehood.ÌýOtherwise, the state will continue to challenge people’s beliefs about the authenticity and reasonability of the information if its duties are limited to determining its veracity and regulating its flow. To navigate the complex landscape of information and fact-checking initiatives, both state apparatus and state agencies can see the misinformation ecosystem by engaging in public education campaigns, promoting media literacy programnes, and supporting independent fact-checking organisations.

State apparatus and state agencies have distinct roles and responsibilities when it comes to protecting nonpartisan fact-checking initiatives and ensuring a long-lasting fact-checking ecosystem to combat misinformation.ÌýIn tackling misinformation, state actors should view themselves not merely as instruments of control but as facilitators of a broader ideological framework that promotes critical thinking and media literacy.ÌýIn this context, the state must avoid functioning solely as a repressive entity; instead, it should act as an ideological entity, engaging with educational institutions, media outlets, and community organisations to foster a more informed and resilient public.

By incorporating media and information literacies into school curricula, through ministries like education and information, future generations can be equipped with the skills to critically evaluate information, detect biases, and identify credible sources.ÌýThe state can play a crucial role in fostering cross-border cooperation through regional bodies such as SAARC and BIMSTEC, encouraging countries to share best practices and resources.ÌýAdditionally, to tackle transnational misinformation in South Asia, states can build collaborative networks with other nations, media organisations, and civil society groups to respond collectively to misinformation campaigns that often have regional and global impacts. By bringing together ministries such as information, education, and public safety, the state can develop cohesive strategies that integrate efforts across sectors. Moreover, this cross-sector collaboration enables the pooling of resources, knowledge, and expertise from various fields, creating a more resilient strategy.

Whether through technological innovation, educational reforms, or public safety initiatives, the state’s coordinated approach can leverage the strengths of different sectors to create a robust defense against misinformation.ÌýThe state can tap into the networks of trust that already exist at the local level by empowering local governments to play an active role in identifying misinformation and promoting accurate information.

Community leaders, educators, and civil society organisations should be enlisted as partners in this fight. The state, therefore, must provide resources and support to these local efforts, ensuring that the fight against misinformation is not confined to top-down strategies but rather becomes a participatory process that engages all levels of society.ÌýWhile the state must engage in these efforts, it is equally important to safeguard the autonomy of non-partisan fact-checking organisations. Over-regulation or direct control of these bodies could undermine their independence, leading to public distrust and reducing their effectiveness in debunking falsehoods.ÌýTherefore, safeguarding a sustainable fact-checking ecosystem requires collaboration among state and private organisations, local communities, and international partners.

Thus, the state’s ultimate goal must be to create a sustainable and transparent ecosystem where fact-checking thrives, media literacy is prioritised, and misinformation is systematically dismantled.ÌýBy embracing its role as an ideological state apparatus, promoting cooperation at both local and international levels, and protecting the autonomy of fact-checking organisations, the state can build a strong defence in the fight against misinformation.

Ìý

Zulker Naeen is research coordinator at the Centre for Critical and Qualitative Studies and Fact-Watch; has recently been appointed to formalise a regional strategy paper for the South Asia Regional Fact-Checking Alliance.